AVS Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I watch a great deal of 16:9 content and have found in almost 1000 lamp hours, that I like the screen height to be 52-54" tall. Now that my theater is nearly complete, I think that I will be watching more movies but a 16:9 ratio 54" screen is only 96" wide which seems to be too small for 2.35 content.


A 54" tall 2.35 screen is 126" wide which it too wide for my 154.5" wide room. The reason is that I have tower speakers.


I am not building a false wall. I am not changing speakers.


What would you think about having a screen made that is 54" tall and 110-115" wide?


Yes, I will have white bar in either format but it keeps my 54" height and gives me a little more size for 2.35 content.


The below is a 4' x 8' board as a screen (can you say 2.0?)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
I say you go for it, especially if you get one of those projectors that remembers a few different zoom settings (eg panny 3000). It seems to take the most advantage of the space you have and if the white areas of the screen bother you, you can always build some manual masks. I don't see a downside doing it this way.


Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,939 Posts
If you had the panny 3000 I would say sure why not with masking perhaps, however you have the Epson 1080 UB. I think your gonna tire of having to set it up constantly between movies and sports.


If you were to go with a scope screen how were you planning to do that format? Zoom or lens and vertical stretch. If it's the second one how are you going to do the image processing, do you have a video processor for stretch and 16:9 squeeze?


I just looked at the specs of the UB, manual zoom and focus, you will definately tire of adjustments.


If the screen goes all the way to the ceiling cant you get away with the scope screen just about, even if the speakers cover some of the border I would say that is a better option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by oman321 /forum/post/17013106


If you were to go with a scope screen how were you planning to do that format? Zoom or lens and vertical stretch.

Low tech... zoom. Which is why I was planning to have to use the zoom lens anyway. I agree that adjusting this continually will be a pain though I can reach it from my riser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oman321 /forum/post/17013106


If the screen goes all the way to the ceiling cant you get away with the scope screen just about, even if the speakers cover some of the border I would say that is a better option.

The challenge here is that the viewing angle from the front row starts to get a bit steep (having to look up to the screen).


So to sumarize.


Buy a 1.78 screen.

- 2.35 movies will be a bit small


Buy a 2.35 screen

- will have to adjust lens between 1.78 vs 2.35 content

- in order to maintain height I want in 16:9 content screen will need to be 126 wide which will force me to move screen up high on wall.

- theater 2.0 may include lens and scaling so this would prepare for future


Buy a 2.0 or similar screen

- will have to adjust lens between 1.78 vs 2.35 content

- white bars in either format


One more thought would be to get the full sized 2.35 screen. I would still need to manually adjust the lens for now but when I want to watch 2.35 content, I could adjust the picture so it does not take the full size of the screen (to keep the speakers out of the picture) which would also allow me to keep from having to have the screen so high but it would give me larger 2.35 content than using a 1.78 screen. Edit... I Don't think I am real fond of this option.


Lastly, the highest priority is full sized 1.78 content (HD hockey games) positioned properly on the wall. Obviously there has to be compromises but this has to be the top priority.


Man, I am just all of the board on this decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,939 Posts
One last option... As nice as your stage turned out, you can remove the sides in order to put the speakers right on the floor to give you some space for the screen. Might make all the difference.
 

·
RETIRED theater builder
Joined
·
36,149 Posts
This may be of interest to you. excerpt from a review of the optoma 8200:

SuperWide

The Optoma Superwide feature relies on a 2.0:1 aspect ratio screen. 2.0:1 AR screens have many positives and will be something that will gain in popularity in the future. I'm going to start another thread soon to discuss 2.0:1 screens and also share some information that I received from Anthony Grimani, the President of PMI while visiting Stewart Filmscreen this past week. For now though, I'll just focus on Optoma's implementation of Superwide which utlizes the 2.0:1 AR screen format.


Optoma's Superwide feature provides both constant image height and constant image area on a 2.0:1 AR screen by cropping the top and bottom of a 16x9 active image area to fit within the 2.0:1 screen area. A 1920x1080 image is cropped to 1920x960. Similarly, a 2.35:1 active image area is scaled vertically while the sides are cropped to yield the 2.0:1 AR.


In both cases very little image area is lost (5% with 16x9 images and 7% on each side with 2.35:1 images) which shows one of the benefits of a 2.0:1 AR screen. One of the chief benefits of the Optoma implementation is that an anamorphic lens is not needed, nor is zooming of the lens required. Scaling of 2.35:1 images is needed, but the Optoma provides that internally.


As I mentioned, 2.0:1 AR screens are something that we wil be seeing in the future and it's good to see a company like Optoma begin to use features that utilize this novel screen aspect ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by oman321 /forum/post/17013598


One last option... As nice as your stage turned out, you can remove the sides in order to put the speakers right on the floor to give you some space for the screen. Might make all the difference.

I have given this one some thought. Hate to undo something else but if it is the right decision, I will take a chain saw to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGmouthinDC /forum/post/17013669


This may be of interest to you. excerpt from a review of the optoma 8200:

SuperWide

The Optoma Superwide feature relies on a 2.0:1 aspect ratio screen.

2.0??? interesting. I have a hard time believing that this population will accept a 7% loss on each side of a 2.35 image. That is 14% (really closer to 15%) of your picture.


Ok, so I have been looking at images 52-54" tall but I have to admit the wife and I were happy with the 48 inch tall temp screen for the hockey games.


If I go with a 49" tall scope screen it is 115" wide (125" diagonal)


154.5-115 = 39.5 or 19.75" on either side of the screen. I think I could squeek my speakers in that amount of space...


I think I may mock up this size with my 4x8 sheet with a little added and see how it looks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,710 Posts
The constant image area is viewed by some as ideal. It does bring the advantage that the image, in all aspect ratios, will have equal illumination (not always true). The prospect of not needing to put another lens into the light path is also often given as an advantage. None-the-less, CIA does have it's own drawbacks. Among these are the inability to get a 2.35 or 2.40 picture wide enough to provide the immersive impact that filmmakers intended as they drove toward Cinemascope and Cinerama aspect ratios. The constraint is image, or screen, height. Once you have a CIA screen wide enough for that impact, the height of the screen is generally too high for the room and/or its height makes second row (and beyond) clear viewing angles difficult to achieve. As well, we humans tend to assess a screen (or picture) as too big based more on height than on width.


While you may save $$$ by not needing that awful picture distorter called an anamorphic less, the four way screen masking requirement could be a budget buster. In the Optoma case, the constant illumination provided by CIA is not available. Since they are cropping the picture, you're not getting two things: (1) constant illumination levels and (2) the full native resolution of the projector. Not being able to take advantage of the projector's full native resolution is a drawback to CIA.


2.35/2.40 also has it's good and bad points. There is the concern that a poor quality anamorphic lens will adversely impact picture quality (the suggestion that a high quality anamorphic lens will create visible image quality reduction is IMHO more arm waving than reality). One of the negatives is that as you illuminate a larger area with the same lamp output, your image illumination will decrease. With better projectors, this can be overcome by dynamically setting bulb output based upon aspect ratio. Any projector with RS232 control of lamp settings will work well in this case. An advantage to the 2.40/2.35 method is that 1.78 and 2.40/2.35 images will utilize the full resolution available to the projection device. (I paid for 4K and by golly, I'm going to use all of it!). Many 2.xx installations will use a curved screen (a horrifying event to Joe Kane). However, as the screen's width (regardless of the aspect ratio) begins to approch the width of the room, you have uneven illumination on the image. Due to that angle of reflectance, angle of incidence thingy, as the image approaches the left/right edge of the screen, more and more of the illumination is reflected someplace other than the viewing area...the walls tend to be a common collector of this light. The solution is to curve the screen. I don't want to say "impossible" but a four-way masking curved screen will be an engineering challenge. Joe Kane would be happy with that...his solution is a smaller screen or a bigger room...either will work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks for the reply. To me the claimed advantages fall far short of the nearly 15% loss (crop) of a 2.35 image. Add that to not using the full resolution of the projector and for me that would be game set and match (A clear loss for the CIA).


A rather simple adjustments in light output based on ratio as you describe quickly eliminates the brightness issue.


The only way I was considering a 2.0ish screen is was to utilize the full width of the screen for the 2.35 images and the full height for the 1.78 images. With my projector and lack of the extra lens, I have to manually adjust and would not be using the full resolution for the projector for 2.35 content but to me that is miles ahead of a CIA croped solution.


With my room and setup added to my preferences (and nearly 1000 hrs of "testing" in my unfinished therter...
) I think I will be going with a 2.35 screen and the lens will probably come later.


Thanks again for the input all.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top